ETHICAL LEADERSHIP, DECISION-MAKING, AND ORGANIZATIONS

Ethical decision-making and leadership are the basis of ethical organizations,

corporate social responsibility, 'fairtrade', sustainability, the 'triple bottom line', and
other similar concepts
Ethical principles provide the foundations for various modern concepts for work, business
and organisations, which broaden individual and corporate priorities far beyond traditional
business aims of profit and shareholder enrichment. Ethical factors also have a significant
influence on institutions and public sector organisations, for whom the traditional priorities
are service quality and cost management.
The modern concept of ethical organisations encompasses many related issues including:
corporate social responsibility (CSR) - or simply social responsibility
the 'triple bottom line'
ethical management and leadership
'Fairtrade'
globalization (addressing its negative effects)
sustainability
corporate governance
social enterprise
mutuals, cooperatives, employee ownership
micro-finance, and
well-being at work and life balance, including the Psychological Contract.
Any other aspects of good modern leadership, management and organisations which relate
to ethics, could be added to the list. Ethics is a very broad area. You will see very many
different definitions and interpretations of the concept, and you should feel free to develop
your own ideas about ethics in terms of meaning, composition, methods and implications.

There are no universally agreed rules of ethics, no absolute standards or controls, and no
fixed and firm reference points. This is fascinating given how hugely important ethics have
now become in modern life and society.
what is ethical?
This explanation attempts to go deeper than the usual descriptions of ethical
organisations, because ethics in work and business are both a reflection
of andinfluenced by ethical aspects of life and the wider world.
The aim of this article not to tell you what's ethical and what's not. The aim is to
help you to determine better for yourself what is ethical and what is unethical.
What is ethical anyhow?
The short answer is that there isn't an answer. There is no absolute rule of what is
ethical and what isn't.
Defining what ethical and unethical mean is only a little easier.
A simpler broad definition of the word ethical is 'fair'. And 'fair' to fair-minded
people, especially those affected by the situation. This is not a scientifically
robust definition, but as you will see, when we peel back the layers of what is
ethical, it's very difficult to be scientific and firm about what it all means.
The modern Oxford English Dictionary says:
"Ethical - Relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these..."
Interestingly the definition continues by way of example: "...Morally correct: Can a
profitable business ever be ethical?..."
N.B. This is merely an example of the word in use - it's not an opinion - nevertheless it's an
example which reflects modern attitudes and the context in which ethical questions now
arise which would not readily have done so a generation or two ago.
Morals and morality appear commonly in attempts to define what ethical means, although
given the difficulties of defining the word morality without using quite subjective terms,
this is not terribly helpful. Morality incidentally is defined in the OED as '...principles

concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour..." See what
I mean?.. Not especially firm or scientific.
More helpfully the OED adds some extra explanation about ethics, summarised thus:
Western ethical philosophy can be divided roughly into three types:
1.

Virtues such as justice, charity and generosity benefit the person and the person's
society. (Largely based on Aristotle's ideas.)

2.

Ethics are central to morality - a human duty - based on rational people's respect for
other rational people. (Notably supported by Kant.)

3.

The guiding principle is based on conduct which produces the greatest happiness or
benefit to the greatest number of people. (Referred to as utilitarianism - this might be also
be considered 'the greater good' concept.)
A single precise definition of ethical is not easy to agree.
Moreover to show how ideas change over time, the 1933 Oxford English Dictionary says
first of ethics (when seemingly the word 'ethic' was used as an adjective like today's use of
the word ethical):

1.

Relating to morals 1581.

2.

Treating of moral questions or of moral science 1589.

3.

Characterized by ethos 1848.

This significant definition of ethos is offered, since it suggests the relative component
within ethics:
"The prevalent tone of sentiment of a people or community..."
Extending this theme, in a practical sense, aside from what is covered by law or other clear
standards, whether something is considered to be ethical by people (markets, customers,
media, etc) is generally a matter of opinion. The same might be said of morality. Both
concepts - ethics and morality - are subjective and a reflection of society and civilization,
which of course implies that precise meanings will change. Both are relative in time and
situation.

Certain ethical issues are represented in law, and in this respect are firm, to a point. (See
the notes about ethics and law below.)
Ethics which are not covered clearly by law are usually a matter of subjective judgement,
especially, but not exclusively, by the reasonable majority, whose view is significant in
deciding whether something is ethical or not.
Such a vague way of judging whether something is ethical is not to diminish the importance
of ethical factors. On the contrary.
In work and life, opinion - especially large scale opinion - can be more influential than
rules and law, notably in relation to markets, publicity, and people's attitudes, which
manifest especially in the behaviour of customers and employees.
The law can actually have a theoretical or marginal effect, whereas large scale opinion is an
unavoidable powerful reality.
For example it is unlawful to drive a little faster than the speed limit. But the vast majority
of people consider it to be acceptable, and so do it. The UK poll tax of the 1980s was
lawful, yet public reaction (much of it unlawful) against it caused the law to be changed.
Ultimately people's attitudes are more powerful than law. Law is a reflection of public
tolerance and views, not a cause of them (unless to produce a reaction against the law of
course).
So do not for a moment underestimate the importance of ethical considerations on the basis
that they could be subjectively judged and difficult to define in law. Popular public opinion
is the sternest most unforgiving measurement of all.

ethical business and ethical investment

As previously stated, the purpose of this article is not to define or describe ethical business
in an absolute sense.
The explanation thus far should demonstrate why such a pronouncement is impossible.
Ethical business - as other ethical issues - are a matter of individual and collective
judgement.

It is possible to go so far only in outlining ethical considerations, and to give some modern
examples of interpretation which seem generally to be accepted.
Ethical investment is a useful aspect for considering ethical business, since large scale
investment is ultimately subject to market forces, which largely reflect public opinion. As
such ethical investment criteria and examples tend to be a good guide towards ethical
attitudes of large sections of people and society, rather than the 'expert' views of leaders and
gurus.
Ethical investment has been a growing aspect of business investment since the 1970s,
although arguably the first types of ethical businesses can be traced back to the Quaker and
Methodist movements of the 1800s.
Then as now ethical business and investments regard socially responsible activities and
aims with far greater priority and emphasis than the traditional profit and free market
business approach.
Traditional profit-based business models, which arose and came to dominate global
commerce from the beginnings of industrialisation, inherently do not require a socially
responsible element, other than compliance with the law, and a reflection of public reaction
for pragmatic marketing (and ultimately profit) purposes.
Ethical business or investment is concerned with how profit is made and how much profit
is made, whereas traditional profit-centred free-market based business is essentially only
concerned with how much profit is made.
Traditional profit-centred business seeks to maximise profit and return on investment with
no particular regard for how the profits are made and what the social effects of the business
activities are.
The ethical approach to business and investment seeks to maximise profit and return on
investment while minimising and avoiding where possible negative social effects.
In this context 'social' and 'socially responsible' include related factors such as:

the environment

sustainability

globalization effects - e.g., exploitation, child-labour, social and environmental

damage anywhere in the world
corruption, armed conflict and political issues
staff and customers relations - for instance education and training, health and safety,
duty of care, etc

local community

and other social impacts on people's health and well-being

Typically the above are interpreted within ethical investment so as to regard the following
sectors and activities as being difficult to reconcile with profit and investment. As with
other perspectives on this page, this is not a definitive list or set of absolute criteria. It's a set
of examples to illustrate typical (modern Western) concerns of ethical investors and ethical
business people:

tobacco

armaments

nuclear power

animal experimentation

oppressive or corrupt national regimes

This is not an exhaustive list and is subject to change - as the world changes.
As stated, this is not a pronouncement of what's unethical. It's a reflection of current
attitudes, which you can use in your own way alongside the other information on this page
to develop your own ideas as to what's ethical and what's not.
Also as stated, things change with time and situation. For example if technology is
developed enabling nuclear power to be safer and less impactful on the future then
obviously concerns in this area would reduce and the ethical implications would decrease or
disappear.

Standards of what is considered ethical change over time, and generally these standards
become more humane as humankind develops greater tolerance, awareness, and capacity
for forgiveness and compassion.
Humankind's - or any society's - capacity for ethical behaviour increases with its own safety
and confidence of survival and procreation.
Hence the human tendency to become less ethically flexible when under threat.
Thus ethical behaviour is a relative judgement, as well as a subjective one. We cannot
impose one society's moral code onto another society with different needs and demands.
Interestingly what is considered unethical in present times, commonly becomes unlawful in
the future. The leading ethical thinking of any time tends to pioneer social and civilization
change.
And so here lies substantial advantage for corporations and other groups and bodies which
anticipate such changes. They adapt quicker, and are seen generally to lead rather than
follow. They also manage change more successfully, since they have time to do it.
Organisations and institutions which fall behind public ethical expectations find catching up
a lot more difficult.

ethics and law

Many believe that the word ethical equates to lawful, and that by being lawful an
organisation or activity is automatically ethical.
This is not so.
While many things that are unethical are also unlawful, ethics do not equate to law.
Many unethical things are entirely lawful (although some can only be tested when/if they
get to court).
Moreover sometimes the law (of any land) can produce extremely unethical effects.
In fact while most unlawful actions will also tend to be unethical, certain situations can
contain a strong ethical justification for breaking the law, or changing the law.

Notable examples are situations in which the law, or the way law is applied, is considered
unethical ('wrong' is the typical description) by sufficient numbers of people to pressure the
legal system to change. You can perhaps think of examples when this has happened, and
such cases are examples of an ethical viewpoint being ultimately more powerful than the
law.
Examples of this happening through (Western) history illustrate the tendency for ethical
considerations to drive the law: women's suffrage (women's right to vote); the abolition of
slavery; and modern human rights and equality legislation are examples of ethical pressures
causing change in law.
The independence of nations and the break-up of colonial rule are further examples of
ethical pressures overwhelming the force of law.
Unlawful acts are not always unethical. Ethical acts are not always lawful.
Lawful therefore does not equate to ethical, and unethical does not equate to unlawful.
Interestingly, the UK Consumer Protection Regulations effective on 26 May 2008 are a
good example of unethical business practices becoming prohibited in law. For example it
has always been unethical to mislead customers into buying products or services. Now it is
illegal to do so (in respect of consumers - here are the implications of the regulations).

ethics and religion

For many people, ethics and ethical judgements are based on a religious belief.
However religion is not a basis for arriving at consistent standards of ethics, any more than
the law is.
To illustrate the point:
A particularly dangerous implication arising from mixing decision-making with religion is
the one which provides the decision-maker with a sort of safety net if everything goes
wrong.
"God will be my judge..."

For people who are not religious, or who have a different religious faith to decision-maker,
these words are a little disturbing in the context of ethical decision-making.
Whose god? Your god? My god? Their god? All gods? The good gods? The collective gods
committee?
And when? When will (the whatever chosen) god be judging this decision? While the
decision is being made? Before the decision is implemented? Immediately after the
decision's implementation (when on Earth some serious monitoring, checking and
managing needs to be happening)? Far into the future when the decision-maker has expired
and gone to whatever version of heaven his (it's generally a man) particular faith promises
him?
The inference is the latter of course. A bit bloody late in other words.
And by what criteria will (the whatever chosen) god be judging the decision? To whose and
with precisely what standards are we being asked to agree here?
And what will be the results of (whatever chosen) god's decision, especially if it's a mighty
god-like thumbs down? What are (the whatever chosen) god's contingencies for putting it
all straight again?
It's anyone's guess..
Do you see how religion is not a brilliant aid for decision-making.
Religion is a personal matter. It has no place in decision-making affecting other people.
Worse, using religion as a personal safety net for serious decision-making is a reckless
desertion of leadership responsibility.
Right-minded people want leaders to take ultimate full absolute responsibility for decisions.
They do not want a leader to seek refuge or personal salvation in (whatever chosen) god or
heaven or a confession box.
This is an additional reason for not mixing religion with leadership and ethical decisionmaking: too many people simply do not accept the basic premise that a leader can delegate
responsibility in such a very strange and unaccountable way.

Aside from anything else, if religion were useful in leadership and decision-making then all
human organisations would be run by the clergy. Civilization tried that a few thousand years
ago and it doesn't work.
Please note: If you are religious and believe that religion has a place in leadership and
decision-making then you might disagree with this section. If so please understand that I am
not berating religion or religious people. I accept that through humankind's existence especially in the last few hundred years - religion in various forms has often provided an
essential code (of ethics arguably) for civilizations and societies to live positively,
harmoniously, generously, peacefully, lovingly, etc. I am making a different point, namely:
reference to religion, and especially a strong personal faith, is not generally very helpful
towards achieving great objectivity, which is vital for ethical decision-making. Moreover
religion of certain types can be extremely divisive, which is obviously not useful for
decision-making entailing diverse groups of people, as commonly arises in today's
increasingly diverse world.

examples of unethical behaviours, activities, policies, etc

Instead of trying to arrive at a standard or all-encompassing rule of what is ethical, it is
helpful to illustrate the depth and variety of ethics through suitable examples.
This is an extension of the ethical business investment items listed above, and goes into far
greater detail of different behaviours which might often be regarded as unethical.
The first category might seem obvious and clear-cut, and actually it's a reasonable starting
point for the vast majority of ethical decisions, but this one point cannot be applied
exclusively in assessing whether something is ethical or not:

anything unlawful in the territory or area covered by such law - is probably unethical.
Not always - see ethics and law.
Conversely, and more importantly, very many legal activities and behaviours can be
extremely unethical. For example, behaviours that are not necessarily unlawful but which
are generally considered to be unethical to Western society would now typically include:

dishonesty, withholding information, distortion of facts

misleading or confusing communications or positioning or advertising

manipulation of people's feelings

deception, trickery, kidology, rule-bending, fooling people

exploitation of weakness and vulnerability

excessive profit

greed

anything liable to harm or endanger people

breach of the Psychological Contract - the Psychological Contract represents trust

and expectations between people in a relationship - notably within employer/employee
relationships, extending to other organizational relationships too - (aside
from Psychological Contract theory, specialised theory within Transactional Analysis helps
explain this aspect of trust and expectations in human relationships)

avoidance of blame or penalty or payment of compensation for wrong-doing

inertia-based 'approvals' and 'agreements' (in which action proceeds unless objected
to)

failing to consult and notify people affected by change

secrecy and lack of transparency and resistance to reasonable investigation

coercion or inducement

harming the environment or planet

unnecessary waste or consumption

invasion of privacy or anything causing privacy to be compromised

recklessness or irresponsible use of authority, power, reputation

nepotism (the appointment or preference of family members)

favouritism or decision-making based on ulterior motives (e.g., secret affiliations,

deals, memberships, etc)
alienation or marginalisation of people or groups

conflict of interests (having a foot in two or more competing camps)

neglect of duty of care

betrayal of trust

breaking confidentiality

causing suffering of animals

'bystanding' - failing to intervene or report wrong-doing within area of responsibility

(this does not give licence to interfere anywhere and everywhere, which is itself unethical
for various reasons)

unfairness

unkindness

lack of compassion and humanity

You will perhaps think of other examples of behaviours or activities which are not
necessarily unlawful, but which a reasonable majority of people (especially those directly
affected by the activities) would consider to be unfair, unjust or simply wrong and therefore
effectively unethical.
Most of the above are subject to extent or degree, whereby serious extensive examples are
more likely to be unethical than minor transgressions and negligible effects.

ethics and public opinion

Ethical considerations are not wholly determined by majority view, just as they are not
wholly defined by law or religion.
Ethics are not a matter of a referendum or vote.
Popular opinion alone is an unreliable measurement of what is ethical for several reasons:

A poorly informed majority of people - or anyone poorly informed - is not able to

make an informed decision about the ethics of a particular decision. The extent to which

people are helped to understand longer-term consequences of a situation is also a limiting

factor in the value of majority opinion.

Democratic decision-making is vulnerable to whim and 'herding' instincts - especially

if the national press and other mainstream media have anything to do with it.

Leadership - as a function within civilizations - features in the organisation of human

systems and societies because people generally accept that many sorts of complex and large
scale decision-making are best made by full-time experts working in the areas concerned,
rather than such decisions being left to the vagaries of popular inexpert view. This is not to
say that people have no right to consultation or a vote on crucial issues (in fact generally
people need more involvement in decisions which affect them) - it is more to illustrate that
majority view, especially when coloured with apathy or misinformation or prejudice for
whatever reason, is not the only basis for deciding what's ethical or not.
Popular opinion is a significant factor in the consideration of what is ethical, but it is not the
only factor, and the significance of popular opinion in determining ethical decisions will
vary according to the situation.

'for the greater good' ethical considerations

A significant influence on ethical judgement is the 'flip-side' of whatever situation is under
question: the effects of the 'ethical' decision.
Upholding an ethical principle might not be sensible if the effect of doing so causes a wider
or greater disadvantage.
This sort of justification when used for unethical actions and policies, etc., is often referred
to as being 'for the greater good'.
Such a viewpoint is associated with a 'utilitarianism' approach to ethics.
Looking at the flip-side and assessing the 'greater good' implications can be helpful, ideally
leading to the facilitation of a compromise solution. Considering the flip-side (or sides) is
actually necessary for relatively straight-forward uncontroversial decisions and actions,
especially when opinions on all sides can be aired, debated, and understood.
However the 'greater good' approach can be a risky angle if used subjectively and
proactively, not least because it tempts the decision-maker to play god, and to attempt a

god-like appreciation of a wide and complex situation, instead of adopting a less personal
and more detached approach.
The combination of the following factors in ethical decision-making is rarely effective:

risk

proactivity (decision-maker instigated)

borderline ethical/unethical

affecting lots of people.

'The greater good' argument is commonly used to support actions containing these elements,
when usually a less risky and aggressive stance is best.
Remember a significant inescapable part of ethical actions are the views and needs of the
rational majority, of the people affected by the action or decision.
If you don't know reliably what these (views and needs) are then you don't understand the
flip-side enough to justify anything, let alone a risky borderline decision.
Beware of this 'greater good' dimension also when you see it used by others, because the
defence of an unethical decision as being "...for the greater good..." is often used cynically
and dishonestly.
The 'greater good' can be a big trap - especially for anyone prone to subjective high-minded
thinking.
The 'greater good' angle also illustrates the dilemma aspect within many ethical decisions.
Ethics are not clear-cut, especially on a large scale.
corporate governance in the face of big ethical decisions is characterised by wisdom and
objectivity, not by subjective personal belief, worse still when it protected by control
mechanisms and the recklessness which often accompanies emotional insecurity, or a strong
personal 'faith' or power delusion.
Beware the leader for whom the personal victory of the decision appears to be more
important than the decision's outcome, whatever the scale and situation - and recognise
these tendencies in yourself if they arise.

Objectivity is the key to ethics, not personal belief or religion or personal power.
Leaders who make decisions subjectively and personally for reasons of building power,
reputation and wealth, entirely miss the point about ethics, and their fundamental
philosophy (or lack of) effectively prevents any real ethical objectivity.
If the motive is wrong, then everything else will be too.

ethical objectivity
So, law alone is not a basis for ethical decision-making. Nor is religion. Nor is 'the greater
good'. And even the rational views and needs of the affected majority are not a basis alone
for ethical decision-making.
So what is the basis of ethical decision-making?
My best suggestion is:
Objectivity and fairness are the basis of ethical decision-making.
In simple terms this means you must be able to see the other people's points of view. This
might seem a simple statement of the bleeding obvious, and it might be, but it is not often
practised. True objectivity is quite difficult to achieve, especially for leaders under pressure.
Similarly, fairness is difficult to define, let alone apply.
Detachment is a huge part of the process. Objectivity is impossible without personal
detachment. Fairness cannot begin to be achieved without detachment, since it's about other
people, not the leader, nor the leader's supporters and environment.
Being ethical is not a matter of evangelizing or imposing your standards and views on other
people. (See Transactional Analysis to understand why people behave in this overly
paternalistic way.)
Being ethical is being fair. Being fair means understanding implications from other people's
perspectives - not your own. The more widely and well you appreciate other people's issues
and implications, then the easier you will find it to be ethical.
Cybernetics is a really useful way to look at objectivity. Objectivity entails understanding
how systems work and inter-relate. But systems here means merely the general sense of

people and the way life is organised. Systems does not refer to complex mathematics or
scientific formulae. Again, it requires you to step back - to detach yourself, resist personal
bias and emotion - step back, be objective, adult, mature - fair.
Objectivity is a wonderfully potent and extremely flexible ability to pursue. Especially if
you can combine it with the ability to facilitate rather than influence.
Objectivity is flexible because it can be approached and achieved in so many different ways
- intuitively, logically, systematically, creatively - anyone can do it. In the same way that the
truth - purity, probity - is available to anyone who cares to look for it.
What does ethical objectivity entail?
Here are some suggestions of the main angles.
The list is not exhaustive - you will see other significant perspectives for different
situations. For small local decisions most of the list might not apply. But if your decision
has potentially significant effects, consider these different perspectives in striving for as
much objectivity as you can.
Ethical considerations comprise several variables in one combination or another, if you are
striving for real objectivity:

The society and/or situation.

Short-term and long-term effects.

'The greater good' - the flip-side of the issue; i.e., what are the other options and their
consequences - the costs or implications of the choices?
Cultural issues.

Issues of personal conscience - of those affected - beware of relying on your own

ideas of 'faith' or 'belief' or 'what is right', because this will not be the view held by many
people affected by your decision. You are not a god, nor an agent of a god.

Religious influence and personal beliefs - of those affected, rather than the decisionmakers, really, I cannot emphasise this enough. Religion is a subjective belief system. Your
own religion is therefore not a basis for objective ethical decision-making.

Informed enlightened educated and truly objective views.

Majority views.

Significant minority views.

Unrepresented very small minority views.

some principles for ethical decision-making

1.

Step back from every decision before you make it and look at it objectively. Use the
above list of examples of unethical behaviours as a check-list to see if you might possibly
be falling into one of these traps. It's easily done: to get swept along by excitement and
urgency; or by apparently demanding expectations, whether self-imposed or otherwise. Aim
for objectivity and fairness - not for personal power, 'winning', strategic plotting, high
drama, etc.

2.

Strive for fairness rather than polarised 'winner takes all' outcomes. Try to facilitate
solutions rather than actually deciding and imposing decisions, unless all parties are happy
for you to do so.

3.

Understand the Psychological Contract and how it applies to your situation. Concepts
such as Empathy and the Johari Window are useful in gaining appreciation of other people's
situations and feelings, which is central to managing the Psychological Contract.

4.

Learn from history and previous situations. Reviewing how previous situations were
handled reduces the risks of making daft mistakes: not many things are fundamentally new
in this world, despite how unique you believe your situation to be. Also history is a superb
store of already invented wheels, which can often save you the time and agonies of trying
unsuccessfully to invent a new one.

5.

Get the facts from all possible perspectives. Often a challenging issue offers three
main options: (a) your instinctive or personal view; (b) a main alternative option; and (c)
the commonly under-estimated ever-available third main option of doing nothing. Doing
nothing in times of real emergency can be disastrous, but for a very large number of
situations doing nothing is the only truly wise way. Doing nothing is not weakness or
procrastination if it done in the right way for the right reasons.

6.

Understand the long-term consequences. Model or brainstorm the 'what if' scenarios.
Again look at previous examples and history.

7.

Check the law. In whatever territories are affected by the decision. But do not base
your decision wholly on the law. See the ethics and law notes.

8.

Consult widely - especially with critical people, and especially beyond your close
circle of (normally) biased and friendly advisors, colleagues, friends, etc. You have not
properly consulted if you merely seek and obtain confirmation from a tame advisor. After
the event such 'consultation' can very easily be interpreted as a conspiracy, in which your
'advisor' is deemed not to have been an advisor but a co-conspirator. Consult especially the
people affected by the situation and potential actions, and if using a survey of any sort then
ensure the positioning and questions used are balanced and objective, because to be
otherwise is unethical in itself. You should even consult about how to frame the survey and
wording of the questions if the issue is anything but a minor one.

9.

Consider cause and effect in the deepest possible sense. Life and all that surrounds it
is one huge interconnected system. If you are making big decisions - or even apparently
little fleeting decisions within a potentially big and sensitive environment - these decisions
will affect many people and aspects of life, now and especially into the future.

10.

Resist the delusion and arrogance that power and authority tends to foster. This is
especially important to guard against if you live and work in a protected, insulated or
isolated situation, as many large scale leaders and decision-makers tend to do. Being a
leader for a long time, or for any duration in a culture of arrogance, privilege and
advantage, provides great nourishment for personal delusion. Many unethical decisions are
borne of arrogance and delusion. Guard against becoming so dangerous.

11.

Beware of justifying decisions according to religious faith. There is nothing wrong

with having a religious faith, but there are various risks in leaning too heavily on a god or
faith when making serious decisions. See the ethics and religion notes.

12.

Aim for solutions and harmony, objectivity and detachment. Facilitate rather than
influence. Help, don't sell. Diffuse situations - find common ground - don't polarise or
inflame. Whenever you see a big swell of expectation looming (among your immediate
team, not those affected by your decision) which is borderline ethical/unethical, remember
the ever-available third option to decide clearly and firmly to do nothing, in the right way
for the right reason. The best ethical decisions are usually decided by people who are most
affected by them, rather than by leaders who don't trust the people.

different personalities see ethical organisations in different ways

Different people relate to ideas about how to run organisations in different ways.
Not everyone readily relates strongly to the principles of corporate integrity, sustainability,
the 'Triple Bottom Line', etc.

These are essentially idealistic views and as such will mostly appeal to idealistic people.
If you are an idealist, remember that not everyone is idealistic.
For example, many entrepreneurial personalities are actually more likely to prefer and
utilise logical and critical thinking, and relatively dispassionate decision-making, than
idealistic principles. These qualities enable entrepreneurs to do what they do well, and most
organisations need a good sprinkling of these types of people. These personalities need firm
reasons as to why the triple bottom line and ethics and CSR are important to achieving solid
performance outcomes.
Process-oriented people; routine-centred, reliable, dependable types, will also not
automatically buy in to idealistic principles, because these people are strongly focused on
facts and real data, rather than ideas and feelings. These people will often need systemic
evidence and predictable processes to assimilate and support idealistic concepts and
philosophies.
People won't simply buy in to the ethical zeitgeist because they are told to.
Therefore when explaining the importance and aims of corporate ethics, consider the
audience. People have different strengths and styles, and some need their own reasons for
buying in to idealistic aims, outside of idealism itself.
Idealists and humanitarians usually have difficulty accepting that processes and financials
should be the primary drivers of organisations. By the same token, people who are driven
and motivated by concrete thinking and performance outcomes will not naturally accept that
organisations should place significant emphasis on idealistic humanitarian philosophies and
aims.
Aside from explanation and understanding, we must also be careful to manage the mix of
organisational obligations. Without efficiency, competitiveness and profit, there'll be no
organisation to look after the people and planet. It's a question of balance.
As ever we need different people's strengths to be able to achieve this. (And while this is an
over-simplification), some people are better taking care of the profit, some the people, and
some the planet - but everyone needs to be aware of all three, and the fact that the future
great organisations will be the ones whose people can best manage the mix.
See the triple bottom line exercise for ideas about getting the ball rolling, if you've not
already done so.

See also the globalisation debate exercise, designed to help highlight issues and actions.

good corporate governance gives good organizational benefits

Significant organizational benefits arise from adopting and applying good corporate
governance and ethically leadership.
Businesses and other services organizations derive substantial advantage, and avoid serious
risks, by acting correctly, with humanity, compassion, and with proper consideration.
Corporate governance is a crucial foundation in achieving these aims because it provides a
framework for the organization's leadership.
competitive advantage - customers are increasingly favouring providers and suppliers who
demonstrate responsibility and ethical practices. Failure to do so means lost market share,
and shrinking popularity, which reduces revenues, profits, or whatever other results the
organisation seeks to achieve.
better staff attraction and retention - the best staff want to work for truly responsible and
ethical employers. Failing to be a good employer means good staff leave, and reduces the
likelihood of attracting good new-starters. This pushes up costs and undermines
performance and efficiency. Aside from this, good organisations simply can't function
without good people.
investment - few and fewer investors want to invest in organisations which lack integrity
and responsibility, because they don't want the association, and because they know that for
all the other reasons here, performance will eventually decline, and who wants to invest in a
lost cause?
morale and culture - staff who work in a high-integrity, socially responsible, globally
considerate organisation are far less prone to stress, attrition and dissatisfaction. Therefore
they are happier and more productive. Happy productive people are a common feature in
highly successful organisations. Stressed unhappy staff are less productive, take more time
off, need more managing, and also take no interest in sorting out the organisation's failings
when the whole thing implodes.
reputation - it takes years, decades, to build organisational reputation - but only one
scandal to destroy it. Ethical responsible organisations are far less prone to scandals and
disasters. And if one does occur, an ethical responsible organisation will automatically

know how to deal with it quickly and openly and honestly. People tend to forgive
organisations who are genuinely trying to do the right thing. People do not forgive, and are
actually deeply insulted by, organisations who fail and then fail again by not addressing the
problem and the root cause. Arrogant leaders share this weird delusion that no-one can see
what they're up to. Years ago maybe they could hide, but now there's absolutely no hiding
place.
legal and regulatory reasons - soon there'll be no choice anyway - all organisations will
have to comply with proper ethical and socially responsible standards. And these standards
and compliance mechanisms will be global. Welcome to the age of transparency and
accountability. So it makes sense to change before you are forced to.
legacy - even the most deluded leaders will admit in the cold light of day that they'd prefer
to be remembered for doing something good, rather than making a pile of money or
building a great big empire. It's human nature to be good. Humankind would not have
survived were this not so. The greedy and the deluded have traditionally been able to persist
with unethical irresponsible behaviour because there's been nothing much stopping them, or
reminding them that maybe there is another way. But no longer. Part of the re-shaping of
attitudes and expectations is that making a pile of money, and building a great big empire,
are becoming stigmatised. What's so great about leaving behind a pile of money or a great
big empire if it's been at the cost of others' well-being, or the health of the planet? The
ethics and responsibility zeitgeist is fundamentally changing the view of what a lifetime
legacy should be and can be. And this will change the deeper aspirations of leaders, present
and future, who can now see more clearly what a real legacy is.

other ethical decision-making ideas

The UK Institute of Business Ethics suggests a simple 'test' for ethical decision-making in
business (see their website for their version).
Adapted below it is applicable to all decisions in all types of organisations and in life as a
whole. It's a remarkably easy test to apply.
Try it next time you have to make a decision:
1.

transparency - am I happy to make my decision public - especially to the people

affected by it?

2.

effect - have I fully considered the harmful effects of my decision and how to avoid
them?

3.

fairness - would my decision be considered fair by everyone affected by it (consider

all stakeholders - the effects of decisions can be far-reaching)
If you can honestly answer Yes to each of the above questions then you are likely to be
making an ethical decision.
If you have any doubt about saying Yes to any of the questions then you should think about
things more carefully. Maybe there is an entirely different and better solution - there often
is.
If you can't decide how to answer these questions, seek input from someone who has strong
ethical principles, and who owes you nothing. Especially do not ask anyone to advise you
about difficult decisions if they owe you some sort of allegiance.
Leaders can sometimes be blinded by their own feelings of self-importance, and more
dangerously can believe that the leader's job requires them to shoulder the burden of
decisions which cause anguish and suffering, or worse. Believing that leadership carries
some sort of right to take risks with other people's well-being is nothing more than arrogant
delusion. A strong feature of good leadership is knowing when, and having the strength, to
find another way - the ethical way.

stakeholders and ethical organisations

If we consider fully what a modern ethical organisation is, we must inevitably take a far
wider view in defining modern stakeholders.
A modern definition of 'stakeholder' is broader than the conventional ideas about
shareholders, investors and partners, etc.
A modern definition of a stakeholder is any group which has an interest in, involvement
with, dependence on, contribution to, or is affected by, the organisation.
Individuals are stakeholders too of course, but for practical reasons most organisations will
necessarily view stakeholders as groups, and for the purposes of this explanation the term
'stakeholder' here also means a stakeholder group.

A stakeholder is any group of people who could lose or gain something because of the
actions of the organisation.
This is especially relevant in the context of ethics, corporate responsibility, sustainability,
etc.
In fact every person on this earth is arguably a stakeholder in every organisation on
this earth.
It's not acceptable to dismiss or deny a group as a stakeholder on the basis that the
relationship is too difficult to measure. If the group is affected by the organisation then it's a
stakeholder and the group's needs must be considered. Thus the organisation acknowledges
its full responsibilities.
The question is then one of type and degree - in other words the needs of each stakeholder,
and the extent of the effect of the organisation on each stakeholder.
So a good modern stakeholder model or analysis would be one which recognises all of the
stakeholder and then identifies a relationship (needs and interests, etc), and also shows a
degree of impact for each stakeholder. Such an analysis can be helpful in training and
development, and is arguably also essential in strategic planning and decision-making.
Some impacts might seem small, but if the size of the stakeholder group is very large then
the overall impact might be considerable.
By accepting that stakeholders are represented by a far wider range of people and groups
than conventionally applied, we effectively expand and liberate the appreciation of what
organisational (and leadership and management) responsibility really is, and how far it
extends.
For example, a villager in deepest Africa is a stakeholder in all UK organisations given their
(our) effect on the world's natural shared resources and the natural world as a whole.
Children yet to be born on the other side of the world are stakeholders of any organisation
given that its activities use, deplete, spoil, (or preferably instead) protect, enhance, and
improve the resources and quality of life available to future generations.
Failure to recognise these more distant and less obvious groupings as 'stakeholders' is what
has enabled organisations to ignore their wider responsibilities both to local communities
and to the rest of the world beyond.

Stakeholders can be found in any or all of the following groups depending on the type of
organisation. Below are examples of stakeholder groups, including conventional 'investor'
stakeholders, and more modern stakeholder ideas. Remember, a stakeholder is any group
that is affected in one way or another by the activities of an organisation.

shareholders

trustees

guarantors

investors

funding bodies

distribution partners

marketing partners

licensors

licensees

approving bodies

regulatory authorities

endorsers and 'recommenders'

advisors and consultants (yes, these people have something at stake too)

employees - staff, managers, directors, non-executive directors

customers

suppliers

the local population (community)

the regional general public

national general public

international communities

humankind
Many of these groups would not conventionally be considered to be stakeholders, but think
about it: each of these groups could have an interest in and could be affected by the
activities of an organisation. If a connection is not easy to see and understand it doesn't
mean the connection doesn't exist.
Given that this sort of modern stakeholder perspective produces such a wide-ranging and
extensive list of stakeholder groups, it's essential to apply (for any given situation) some
method of evaluating and expressing relative stakeholder interests and needs, and also to
measure and show the varying significance of the stakeholder relationships; the degree of
impact or dependence.
Logically, this can be achieved via some sort of 'weighted analysis', designed to assess,
analyse, compile and prioritise all stakeholder needs for any given organisation and
operating scenario. This is not a precise science, but again, the difficulty in measuring the
impact is no excuse for denying the existence of the relationship, the stakeholding, and the
organisational responsibility for the stakeholder group concerned. Below is a suggested
basic template for this purpose, which you can adapt for your own situation.